scholarly journals The Indirect Cost Burden of Cancer Care in Canada: A Systematic Literature Review

Author(s):  
Nicolas Iragorri ◽  
Claire de Oliveira ◽  
Natalie Fitzgerald ◽  
Beverley Essue
2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 1216-1248
Author(s):  
Nicolas Iragorri ◽  
Claire de Oliveira ◽  
Natalie Fitzgerald ◽  
Beverley Essue

Background: Out-of-pocket costs pose a substantial economic burden to cancer patients and their families. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the literature on out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies that estimated the out-of-pocket cost burden faced by cancer patients and their caregivers. The average monthly out-of-pocket costs per patient were reported/estimated and converted to 2018 USD. Costs were reported as medical and non-medical costs and were reported across countries or country income levels by cancer site, where possible, and category. The out-of-pocket burden was estimated as the average proportion of income spent as non-reimbursable costs. Results: Among all cancers, adult patients and caregivers in the U.S. spent between USD 180 and USD 2600 per month, compared to USD 15–400 in Canada, USD 4–609 in Western Europe, and USD 58–438 in Australia. Patients with breast or colorectal cancer spent around USD 200 per month, while pediatric cancer patients spent USD 800. Patients spent USD 288 per month on cancer medications in the U.S. and USD 40 in other high-income countries (HICs). The average costs for medical consultations and in-hospital care were estimated between USD 40–71 in HICs. Cancer patients and caregivers spent 42% and 16% of their annual income on out-of-pocket expenses in low- and middle-income countries and HICs, respectively. Conclusions: We found evidence that cancer is associated with high out-of-pocket costs. Healthcare systems have an opportunity to improve the coverage of medical and non-medical costs for cancer patients to help alleviate this burden and ensure equitable access to care.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 990-1011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith A. Meiklejohn ◽  
Alexander Mimery ◽  
Jennifer H. Martin ◽  
Ross Bailie ◽  
Gail Garvey ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 136-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yulia Watters ◽  
Jennifer Harsh ◽  
Cheyenne Corbett

PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. e0214382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mina Nejati ◽  
Moaven Razavi ◽  
Iraj Harirchi ◽  
Kazem Zendehdel ◽  
Parisa Nejati

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5908-5908
Author(s):  
Elizabeth James ◽  
Holly Trautman ◽  
Gerard Hoehn ◽  
Erika Szabo ◽  
Boxiong Tang

Abstract BACKGROUND: Advanced targeted therapies have improved survivals and efficacies in patients with certain hematology conditions. However, the treatment costs and safety are some concerns among healthcare providers, patients, and payers. OBJECTIVES: To identify and characterize the treatment burden of rituximab, focusing on drug cost, toxicity, and other treatment-related costs in hematological malignancies, given the anticipated market entry of biosimilar products.[1] METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) using the online version of Index Medicus identified relevant publications using pertinent search terms (see Table) to capture treatment-related cost and non-cost burden publications in English language, publication dates 01/01/2010 to 01/24/2018. RESULTS: Of the 704 publications returned in the search, a total of 28 US and ex-US treatment burden studies (9 cost, 16 non-cost, and 3 drug route comparison studies) were included in the review. US (4) and ex-US (5) treatment cost studies found that direct medical costs of care were dramatically increased with the addition of rituximab or that rituximab represented a large proportion of total costs of care. For publications with calculated benefits associated with treatment, the addition of rituximab to CT was coupled with life-year gains and lower mortality. A large observational study found no difference in all-cause hospitalization rates in the 12 months following rituximab treatment. While studies designed to evaluate rituximab toxicity have found the addition of rituximab to CT to be associated with a general increase in incidence of adverse events (AEs) overall, 1 prospective study found no subsequent decline in quality of life (QOL), and another prospective study observed a significant increase in time without disease symptoms or toxicity (8.33 months) and less time spent in relapse. Both rituximab maintenance (after successful induction) and retreatment at progression were associated with a decline in illness-related anxiety (1randomized, Phase III trial in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma), while rituximab maintenance was associated with significantly decreased pain and other illness-related symptoms vs observation (2 studies). Five studies (3 US; 2 ex-US) analyzed infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and/or rapid infusion use. Overall, IRRs, especially with first infusions, were common (40%-63%), but primarily low-grade (I-II), and rituximab was usually well-tolerated on same-day rechallenge. Marked patient time was saved with rapid infusion. An SLR and meta-analysis of rapid rituximab infusion further characterized rapid infusion, identifying all IRRs as Grade I or II with a pooled incidence of 2.6%. Three ex-US studies evaluated economic endpoints comparing intravenous and subcutaneous (SC) preparation and administration of rituximab. One study calculated higher labor costs for SC rituximab, while 2 studies calculated lower staff time for SC rituximab; all studies identified shorter patient treatment/chair time for SC rituximab. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the treatment-related cost burden of rituximab in malignant conditions is substantial, while its associated toxicity is relatively low, and patient QOL is maintained or improved. Incident and increased toxicities associated with rituximab added to CT may or may not be exclusively attributable to rituximab. Administration rate and route influence economic endpoints with rituximab use. These findings highlight the potential economic benefit of lower-cost biosimilar rituximab products for patients, health care systems, and payers. [1] This Abstract is not intended to refer to any particular biosimilar product or use thereof. Disclosures James: Teva: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Trautman:Teva: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Hoehn:Teva: Employment. Szabo:Teva: Employment. Tang:Teva: Employment.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 1746-1760
Author(s):  
Beverley M. Essue ◽  
Nicolas Iragorri ◽  
Natalie Fitzgerald ◽  
Claire de Oliveira

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
Mir Sohail Fazeli ◽  
Divya Pushkarna ◽  
Ana Howarth ◽  
Margaret Hux ◽  
Mir-Masoud Pourrahmat ◽  
...  

Introduction: The treatment landscape for hematologic malignancies is evolving rapidly, and a range of therapeutic options with differing routes of administration is now available. The shifting dynamics of these novel therapies and increasing total treatment costs highlight the importance of value-based healthcare decisions that take patient, payer, and societal perspectives into account. It is therefore increasingly important to consider both direct and indirect costs when evaluating therapeutic options. Reducing healthcare visits for administration of non-oral therapies (injectable and/or mixed therapies) results in indirect cost savings and is of particular relevance during the current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic where there are distinct challenges with respect to visiting hospital settings. However, the indirect cost savings of utilizing oral versus non-oral treatments have yet to be fully assessed from a patient and societal perspective. The objective of this review was to assess the differences in indirect non-treatment-related costs between oral and non-oral therapies for hematologic malignancies. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted by searching the Embase®, MEDLINE®, EconLit, and Health Technology Assessment/National Health Service economic evaluation (HTA/NHS EED) databases from inception to June 2020. Additionally, literature searches of proceedings from the 2018-2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), American Society of Hematology (ASH), and The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) conferences were performed to capture recent studies not indexed in the main databases. A manual search of the reference list from all included study publications was also performed. Eligibility criteria for study identification were developed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework. Eligible studies included cost models and observational studies reporting indirect costs from a patient and/or societal perspective for oral versus non-oral therapies. Results: A total of 4,012 records were identified by the searches. Following title/abstract screening, the full text of 25 publications was reviewed, and 5 studies conducted in the USA (n = 3), Italy (n = 1), and Finland (n = 1) were identified as eligible and selected for qualitative evidence synthesis (Table). Although the SLR protocol included all hematologic malignancies, only studies including patients with multiple myeloma (MM) were identified. The indirect costs reported across the selected studies varied and included costs such as loss of productivity, transportation, and patient and/or caregiver time. Among all 5 studies, total indirect costs for patients with MM were lower for oral versus non-oral regimens. In the USA-based studies, indirect costs were USD 70-1,202 per month for oral regimens versus USD 432-1,526 per month for non-oral regimens. In Europe-based studies, indirect cost estimates were EUR 1,800 versus EUR 17,000 per year for oral versus non-oral regimens (Italian study), and EUR 114 versus EUR 358 per 28-day cycle for oral versus non-oral regimens (Finnish study; averages calculated from ranges in Table). Conclusions: This SLR demonstrates a paucity of data on the indirect costs to patients and society of oral versus non-oral therapies for hematologic malignancies. The studies included in this review assessed differing types of indirect costs, including loss of productivity, transportation costs, and patient and/or caregiver time; however, all indicated that the administration of oral regimens is associated with lower indirect costs compared with non-oral regimens. This finding is compelling given the current global health crisis due to COVID-19, where prioritizing the concept of "value" means assessing more complex issues, such as indirect costs that may have a meaningful impact on patients and society. Disclosures Fazeli: Evidinno Outcomes Research Inc.: Current Employment. Pushkarna:Evidinno Outcomes Research Inc.: Current Employment. Howarth:Evidinno Outcomes Research Inc.: Current Employment. Hux:Evidinno Outcomes Research Inc.: Consultancy. Pourrahmat:Evidinno Outcomes Research Inc.: Current Employment. Chen:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document